Dokploy MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral information: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal value beyond this - it confirms the HTTP method is GET (which aligns with readOnlyHint) but doesn't provide any additional behavioral context about what specifically gets retrieved, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. With good annotation coverage, the description meets the lower bar but doesn't add meaningful behavioral insight.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise - just one line plus a parameter listing. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficient. The structure is basic but functional, with the HTTP method and parameter name clearly indicated. While not verbose, it lacks the substance needed to be truly helpful, making this borderline between adequate and inadequate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a read operation (GET) with good annotation coverage but no output schema, the description should explain what kind of data is returned. It doesn't specify whether this returns security settings, logs, policies, or other security-related information. With 0% schema description coverage for the required parameter and no output schema, the description leaves too many unanswered questions about what this tool actually does and what results to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no documentation for the single required parameter 'securityId'. The description only lists the parameter name without explaining what a securityId is, what format it should be in, where to find valid securityIds, or what happens if an invalid securityId is provided. For a tool with one required parameter and zero schema documentation, the description fails to compensate adequately for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states '[security] security.one (GET)' which is tautological - it essentially repeats the tool name 'dokploy_security_one' and adds the HTTP method. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does (retrieve security information? get a specific security setting? view security logs?). The description fails to provide a clear verb+resource combination that distinguishes this from sibling tools like dokploy_security_create, dokploy_security_delete, or dokploy_security_update.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention what security information this retrieves, when you'd want to get security data versus create/update/delete it, or how this relates to other security-related tools in the system. With multiple sibling security tools available, this lack of differentiation guidance is a significant gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.